Key Factors for Eco Innovation

ISSN: 1131 - 6837 Cuadernos de Gestión Vol. 12. Especial Innovación (Año 2012), pp. 73-103 73

Key business factors for eco-innovation: an overview of recent firm-level empirical studies

Factores empresariales clave para la eco-innovación: una revisión de estudios empíricos recientes a nivel

de empresa

Ángeles Pereira1

Xavier vence1

Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (España) Recibido el 27 de septiembre de 2011, aceptado el 18 de enero de 2012Nº de clasificación JEL: Q55, O31DOI: 10.5295/cdg.110308ap

Abstract:

The increasing interest in eco-innovation or environmental innovation as a strategy not only to address the serious global environmental problems but also as a source of competitive advantages for companies and for the emergence of new business areas, leads us to try to identify the different factors that act as determinants of its development and adoption at the micro level. In this paper we integrate the findings from several recent empirical studies according to our own classification of factors derived from the variables used in those analyses. From a conventional perspective we referred to the structural characteristics of firms (size, sector, age), the business logic (cost savings, market expansion) or to its technological competence (R&D, path dependencies, qualification of staff and management, cooperation and participation in networks, etc.). We added another category to refer to organizational or marketing innovations that reflect the existence of a certain environmental strategy within the company. In general, the findings show that factors influencing conventional innovation also work in relation to eco-innovation, in particular those related to cost savings and technological competence. Therefore, along with a stringent environmental regulation (justified because of the specific characteristics of eco-innovation) specific supply and demand side instruments are convenient. Measures to disseminate environmental information amongst all stakeholders can also be very useful to promote environmentally friendly and economically viable products and processes, as well as forms of organization and new business.

Keywords:

Eco-innovation, firm-level determinants, supply side and demand side factors, environmental strategy.

Resumen:

El creciente interés por la eco-innovación o innovación medioambiental como una estrategia no sólo para tratar los problemas medioambientales sino también como una fuente de ventajas competitivas para las empresas y para la emergencia de nuevas áreas de negocio, nos lleva a tratar de identificar los diferentes factores que ac-túan como determinantes de su desarrollo y adopción a nivel micro. En este artículo integramos los resultados de

1 Department of Applied Economics, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC), Avenida do Burgo, s/n 15782, Santiago de Compostela. [email protected] [email protected]


Cuadernos de Gestión Vol. 12. Especial Innovación (Año 2012), pp. 73-103 ISSN: 1131 - 683774

varios estudios empíricos recientes de acuerdo con una clasificación propia de factores derivada de las variables utilizadas en esos análisis. Desde una perspectiva convencional nos referimos a las características estructurales de las empresas (tamaño, sector, edad), a la lógica de negocio (ahorro de costes, ampliación del mercado), y a su competencia tecnológica (actividades de I+D, cualificación del personal y la administración, cooperación y par-ticipación en redes,…). Añadimos otra categoría para referirnos a innovaciones de organización y de marketing que reflejan la existencia de una cierta estrategia medioambiental empresarial. En general, los resultados mues-tran que los factores que influyen en la innovación convencional también afectan a la eco-innovación, destacando los relacionados con el ahorro de costes y la competencia tecnológica. En consecuencia, junto a una regulación medioambiental estricta –justificada en base a las características específicas de la eco-innovación– consideramos útil apoyar los factores de demanda y de oferta con instrumentos específicos. Las medidas para la difusión de información medioambiental entre los actores relevantes pueden también ayudar a promover productos, procesos, nuevas formas de organización y nuevos negocios respetuosos con el medio ambiente y económicamente viables.

Palabras clave:

Eco-innovación, determinantes a nivel empresarial, factores de oferta y demanda, estrategia medioambiental.

Ángeles Pereira Sánchez / Xavier Vence Deza


1. IntroductIon

In recent years, the increasing social and political awareness of the seriousness of envi-ronmental problems, coupled with the appreciation of innovation as an engine of economic growth has led to emphasize environmental innovation or more recently eco-innovation as a key strategy that will allow businesses to make economic and environmental goals compatible, and, at the same time but at a higher level, transforming the current pattern of growth of economies towards a more sustainable one.

Neoclassic economics considers environmental policy as a tool to achieve specific en-vironmental goals and this is often assumed as harmful for companies’ competitiveness. Nevertheless, in recent years the idea that if environmental policy were correctly designed it could lead to the achievement of competitive advantages for the most dynamic firms, via the promotion of innovation, has been suggested (see Porter and van der Linde, 1995). There is extensive literature on the impact of environmental regulation on innovation and on the effectiveness of different types of policy instruments (command and control vs. market-based instruments). Early studies are typically theoretical modelling (for a very comprehensive review see, for example, Jaffe et al, 2003; Requate, 2005) and there are also extensive reviews of empirical studies about the impact of policy instruments on the rate and direction of technological change (see Vollebergh, 2007). The works that analyse the impact of demand and supply factors in eco-innovation are limited but are increasing in numbers. The lack of systematic data on environmental innovation has largely limited its more detailed study. In recent years, government surveys in different European countries started to include questions concerning the environmental impact of innovation. These data and in other cases, some specific surveys carried out ad hoc have provided information to build econometric studies. These empirical works constitute the target of our review because, despite their disadvantages (limits related to subjectivity of respondents, low re-sponse rates, different forms of measuring eco-innovation and data limited to one moment in time as well as the heterogeneity in modelling) they allow for the characterisation of firms according to a number of variables and taking into account multiple relationships with eco-innovation.

The aim of this paper is to carry out a review of studies that analyse different factors that act as determinants of eco-innovation at the micro level from the perspective of the firm and to integrate them in order to have a more overall understanding. This must be the base to determine which instruments of public policy are the most convenient to promote environmental innovation.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: we describe briefly in section 2 the definition and the determinants of eco-innovation. In section 3 we present our methodology and data. We revise, according to our classification, the factors that several recent econo-metric analyses use as key variables in the study of the determinants of eco-innovation in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 summarises the contributions of this paper and draws some conclusions.



2. defInItIons And conceptuAl frAmeworK

2.1. Definitions of eco-innovation

There is no single definition of eco-innovation. The earliest references to the term be-gan in the mid-90s (probably Fussler and James, 1996) although control pollution innova-tion, control pollution technologies or environmental innovation were used previously and also refer to similar (technological) issues.

The ECODRIVE Project (Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission) defines eco-innovation restrictively as the area that intersects between environmental in-novation (innovation with positive effects on the environment but not profitable from a commercial point of view) and conventional innovation (non-environmental innovation, that has a positive impact in terms of economic profits but fails in relation to the environ-ment). Therefore eco-innovation is specifically that which is able to meet a double gain, to provide a win-win situation. From the perspective of industrial dynamics, Andersen (2008) describes eco-innovations as “innovations which are able to attract green rents on the mar-ket” (Andersen, 2008, p. 5). Again, the double gain is emphasized, that is, improving the environment along with the ability to improve business competitiveness.

Based on the definition of innovation of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005), the MEI Project (Sixth Framework Programme of the European Commission) suggests: “Eco-in-novation is the production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or management or business method that is novel to the organization (developing or adopting it) and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) com-pared to relevant alternatives.” (Kemp and Pearson, 2007, p. 7). Taking the perspective of the ECODRIVE Project this definition is comparable to environmental innovation.

Most of the studies we reviewed refer to environmental innovation without valuing if it allows a double gain or not. We then use eco-innovation as a synonymous of environmental innovation.

Eco-innovation may refer to products or processes, organizational or institutional changes. Often process eco-innovations are divided into end-of-pipe technologies and pro-duction integrated cleaner technologies1 (see e.g. Rennings, 2000; Frondel et al, 2007; Demirel and Kesidou, 2011, for more details). Because of the scope of the studies re-viewed, we mainly refer in this paper to process and product eco-innovations.

2.2. Specificities and determinants of eco-innovation

One of the great aims in economic history has been to understand which factors give impulse to technological development. The traditional theory of innovation tends to dis-

1 End-of-pipeline technologies have the objective of aisle or mitigate pollutant substances after being produced; process-integrated technologies are aimed at decrease the pollution as well as the resources and energy consumption by introducing changes in process and production methods. Product eco-innovations are those that achieve a reduction in the environmental impact through changes in their composition –less harmful substances– or using less energy, generating less residues, etc.



tinguish between technology-push and market-pull factors to explain the development and diffusion of innovations. More recently, evolutionist theories have developed an interac-tive perspective of the innovative process, in which innovation is not considered a simple response to the stimulus of demand and supply factors, but the importance of innovation systems and the different interactions between the elements of the system in the production and diffusion of new useful knowledge (Lundvall, 1992) are emphasized. Concerning the determinants of conventional innovation an interesting literature review is the one carried out by Cohen (2010). The author analyzes the Schumpeterian hypotheses of the relation-ships between innovation and size, as well as between innovation and market structure. He also adds some specific industry-level (demand, technological opportunity and appropri-ability conditions) and firm-level (cash flow, diversification, integration of R&D with other functions, R&D capabilities) determinants.

Before going into the determinants of eco-innovation is useful to understand its spe-cificities. From the neoclassic perspective eco-innovation presents a “double externality” characteristic (Rennings, 2000). Innovation processes generally originate some knowledge spillovers. The appropriability problem implies that different agents can benefit from these spillovers, without the firm that undertakes the initial research and investment effort re-ceives any reward for them. That situation, which is a market failure, is due to the relative simplicity to reproduce knowledge in contrast with the obstacles to its creation. It can mean a disincentive to invest in eco-innovation. On the other hand, if a firm internalises the en-vironmental damages that it causes, this generates a positive social gain, that society does not have to pay for. The agent that makes the investment looking for his own profit is not able to take full advantage of the gains its investment creates. That situation can also drive under-investment from the private sector in environmental issues.

From the double externality problem arises environmental policy as a strong specific determinant of eco-innovation. It is known as the regulatory push/pull effect (Rennings, 2000). The analysis of the importance of this factor is common in the literature that stud-ies the determinants of innovation with environmental characteristics. Porter and van der Linde (1995) maintain that a strict and adequately designed policy can trigger innovation and this, in turn, can offset the costs of compliance with the norm partially or even more than completely. Their hypothesis has a second part, as the authors understand that policy can originate “innovation offsets” that not only allow the lowering of the net cost of com-plying with the set of environmental norms, but it also can drive a firm to have an absolute advantage over foreign ones not subject to similar norms. Several papers analyze and try to confirm the Porter Hypothesis (see e. g. Lanoie et al., 2007; Triebswetter and Wackerbauer, 2008).

According to the evolutionist theory, eco-innovation has a third characteristic, which is the interaction of ecological, social and institutional systems (Rennings, 2000). This is a relevant assumption for those studies dealing with promoting eco-innovation as a general strategy to achieve sustainability goals.

Leaving aside the role of environmental policy, in this paper we take the perspective of the company and focus on demand and supply factors as well as firms’ structural char-acteristics. We do not think that the development of innovations with a favourable impact on the environment is motivated by substantially different factors of non environmental innovation but there may be some specific aspects that have a greater impact or same fac-



tors that have different effects. One must not forget the fact that eco-innovation presents, compared to conventional innovation, an additional characteristics of public good2, via the improvement of the quality of the environment.

3. reseArch method And dAtA

The literature on the determinants (beyond environmental regulation) of eco-innova-tion is growing. There are an increasing number of empirical analyses that address different questions related to environmental innovation and we believe it is necessary to find com-mon characteristics in order to establish a more overall view. The central aim of this paper is therefore to integrate the factors that act as drivers of eco-innovation and a literature review approach was selected as the research method.

After doing a search in Science Direct and Google Scholars databases using “eco-inno-vation”, “environmental innovation” and “determinants of environmental innovation” as search terms we obtained a considerable number of documents. The literature review con-sisted of reading and classifying these documents according to topics such as “concepts”, “environmental policy and eco-innovation”, “strategic policy, eco-innovation and sustain-ability”, “determinants of eco-innovation”, etc.

The abstracts of papers included in the topic “determinants of eco-innovation” were read in order to set the sample. The first empirical analyses on the determinants of eco-innovation date from the late 1990s but we selected those from 2006 to 2011 because of better data and indicators. We also analysed their bibliographies with the aim of improving our selection. Finally, 14 studies were included in the sample, using these criteria: (i) the paper studies determinants of eco-innovation (other than regulation); (ii) the analysis is based in an econometric technique.

Our literature review is concept-centric (Webster and Watson, 2002). After complet-ing the reading, we synthesized the literature by discussing each factor identified by the authors. There are different ways of classifying the factors that influence the adoption and development of eco-innovation. For Ashford (2005), three elements are necessary and suf-ficient within companies for technological change to happen: the desire to change, the opportunity/motivation to change and the capacity to change. These three factors are de-termined by more basic factors which in turn are interrelated. For example, the attitudes of the directors or the organizational structure itself are behind the desire to change, while the opportunity or motivation to innovate might be determined more typically by technologi-cal factors (the existing gap between the technology used by the firm and the availability of advanced technologies in the market or the firm’s possibility of developing them) or via demand (normative requirements, costs and cost saving, potential profits, public demand, social and work pressure...). Finally, the capacity to innovate will be determined by the

2 A public good has two characteristics: nonexclusive, that is to say, no one can be deprived of use or enjoy it; and non-rival, that means that everybody can use it without limiting its availability to others. All innovation presents, because of the use of knowledge, public good characteristics. Additionally, environmental innovation, because of its purpose of improving the environment, enhances its definition as a public good. When a firm reduces its emissions to the atmosphere through the introduction of a filter, this improved air quality is a social good because everyone can benefit from this less polluted air “portion” and nobody can appropriate it.



intentional or casual increase in knowledge and the information on cleaner and safer oppor-tunities, as well as with the increase of the cognitive base of the firm through the training of workers and managers, and ultimately with the business trajectory itself (with regards to its innovation culture, its technological rigidity or flexibility, etc.).

A recent and interesting contribution related to determinants of environmental innova-tion is the one by Del Río (2009). The author carried out a literature review based in a sample of papers selected from 1985 to 2007, in order to suggest topics for further research. According to his review, factors influencing the engagement of firms with environmental technological change are internal factors (existence of a proactive environmental strat-egy, technological competence, financial resources, size, ownership, export orientation and sector characteristics) external factors (market and non market pressures, networking and interaction with other actors in the system) and the characteristics of environmental tech-nologies (complexity, compatibility with the existent production processes, life cycle of capital, high initial direct costs of the investment).

Oltra (2008), who suggest to use the evolutionary literature on technological regimes as a relevant framework in order to analyse the various determinants of environmental in-novations and the double externality problem in an industrial dynamics context, distinguish three categories of determinants (see Table 1):

Table 1

Determinants of environmental innovation

Regulation and policy determinants

Implementation of environmental policy instruments: economic and regulatory instrumentsExistence and anticipation of environmental regulationsRegulatory design: stringency, flexibility, time frame

Supply side determinants

Cost savings, productivity improvementsOrganizational innovations: environmental management systems, extended producer responsibilityR&D activitiesIndustrial relationships, supply chain pressure, networking activi-ties

Demand side determinants

Environmental consciousness and consumer’s preferences for envi-ronmentally friendly products.Expected increase in market share or penetration of new market segments

Source: Oltra, 2008, p.7

Our proposition (see Table 2), which is no exhaustive, is related to the factors found in the studies included in the sample (see Appendix A for more details on those analyses). Therefore, the reader must be aware of the fact that other factors can also influence eco-innovation.



Table 2

Factors influencing eco-innovation. Findings from the literature review

Type of determinant Factor

Conventional factors

Structural characteristics of the firms

SizeSectorAge

Business logic

Cost savingsCustomer’s requirements Customer’s benefitsCustomer’s satisfaction Expected demandExport oriented strategy

Technological competence

R&D activitiesPath dependencies: innovation in the past, organizational / technological innovationEmployees qualifications Cooperation and network activitiesIndustrial relationships

Firm’s environmental strategy / management and marketing innovation

Environmental innovation system (ISO, EMAS)Environmental criteria in product planning and developmentLife cycle assessment activities of own productsWaste disposal or take back systems of own productsEnvironmental labellingMarket research on green productsInforming the customers

3. results of the lIterAture revIew

3.1. Structural characteristics of firms

In this subsection we briefly review some internal characteristics of firms that facilitate their engagement in eco-innovation. The empirical literature reviewed allows discussing the size, the age and the sector. Other important characteristics identified by Del Río (2009) are the ownership of the company, to the extent that being part of a multinational usually involves benefits from major technological competence; and the availability of financial resources or cash flow necessary to invest in environmental technologies.

A. The size

One of the most common variables of control in econometric estimations on the de-terminants of eco-innovation is the measure of the number of employees in a firm. The



hypothesis is that a larger firm3 has greater capacity to implement an environmental inno-vation strategy due to its greater economic capacity to carry out the necessary investments, more human resources, a clearer internal organization, with the possibility to count on responsible staff or departments specifically orientated to R&D activities4 and/or related to the environmental impact of its products and/or processes, etc. On the contrary, the small size can constitute a barrier to the extent that small firms usually lack human, technical and financial resources (Del Río, 2009).

The results are not definitive. For Mazzanti and Zoboli (2006) the size is only signifi-cant if it relates to the R&D/employee index, and this determines, to a certain degree, the undertaking of R&D but not its results. From another perspective, Wagner (2007) identifies size as a very important determinant of patent with regards to environmental innovation. Kesidou and Demirel (2010) prove that investment in environmental R&D is significantly related to size. Their analysis also suggests a U shape, in that smaller firms and larger ones invest more in this concept than medium sized firms.

On the other hand, in a later study Demirel and Kesidou (2011) identify size as an important determinant related to investments in end of pipe technologies but not signifi-cant when they consider investments in integrated technologies or environmental R&D. Meanwhile the estimation by Frondel et al (2007) shows a positive influence of size in both cleaner production and end of pipe technologies. Without distinguishing by type, Rennings et al (2006) acknowledges a positive influence of size on environmental process innova-tions.

For Rave et al (2011) eco-innovation is positively associated with firm size when com-pared to non environmental innovations, when they analyse both self-reported innovations and patent data. This factor is also relatively more associated with eco-patents. On top of this, they find that large firms are more capable of creating continuous eco-innovations.

On the other hand, Frondel et al. (2008), when studying the possible existence of a correlation between the adoption of environmental management systems5 and innovation, reveal that size only affects the adoption of environmental management systems. The ca-pacity of being able to undertake a scheme like this is the major factor that, according to the authors, explains this correlation.

Focusing exclusively on product eco-innovation, Kammerer (2009) finds that the firm’s size is positively related to the extension of green characteristics to a wide range of prod-

3 Rosenberg (1993) cites a fragment of Capital in which Marx argues that large-scale production favours the application of measures to use waste or by-products: “The general requirements for the reemployment of these ‘excretions’ are: large quantities of such waste, such as are available only in large-scale production, improved machinery whereby materials, formerly useless in their prevailing form, are put into a state fit for new production; scientific progress, particularly chemistry which reveals the useful properties of such waste.” (Rosenberg, 1993, p. 57).4 Cohen (2010) discusses the Schumpeterian hypothesis of a relationship between firm size and R&D. His review allows him to recognise a monotonic relationship between the two variables, which is roughly related to an advantage derived from the R&D cost spreading of larger firm size. At the same time, this advantage is dependent on the appropriability conditions that usually restrict firms to exploit innovations in their own products; on the limited growth due to innovation and on the market segmentation.5 According to the International Standard Organization (ISO) an environmental management system (EMS) is a systematic approach to dealing with the environmental aspects of an organization. It is a ‘tool’ that enables an organization of any size or type to control the impact of its activities, products or services on the natural environment (http://www.tc207.org/faq.asp?Question=5)



ucts and with a greater degree of novelty. The findings by Horbach (2008) are undefined. When he analyses environmental product innovation in firms from the environmental sec-tor –those that offer environmental goods or services- and also when he compares environ-mental (products and processes) innovations versus other innovation there is no significant correlation with size. On the other hand, when he compares environmental innovations and other innovations (non environmental) with the no-innovation alternative then there is a positive correlation.

B. The sector

Innovation is likely largely determined by the technological opportunities of the spe-cific sector or industrial branch. Del Río (2009) points to the importance of considering the technological maturity of the sector in order to know more about the direction of environ-mental technological change and its determinants.

The differences between sectors are related to the particular trajectory of the sector –innovative efforts in an industry or complex of industries tend to concentrate in some several problems and the solutions are usually based in a known method–, to the degree of difficulty of learning that specific-sector technologies involve, or even to the different relationships and externalities between actors involved in a given sector.

On the other hand, there are cross-sectoral technologies, as for instance, general pur-pose technologies, which can be applied to several sectors. Del Río (2009) suggests re-searching, in that case, if there are common or different factors influencing the adoption of these technologies across sectors.

When talking about environmental issues, is expectable that firms that have a bigger polluting potential tend to develop and/or adopt more innovations that allow them to re-duce their environmental impact and probably the associated economic costs. This be-haviour may be related to costs saving and / or to external pressure. When analysing the environmental performance of firms we can distinguish sectors that produce final goods or services from those other sectors that produce intermediate goods or services. In the first case environmental pressure usually comes from customers. Therefore the company can develop an environmental strategy to face social pressures (to offer a green image, to improve working conditions, etc.). In relation to sectors that produce goods or services to other sectors, environmental pressure often comes from regulation. Thus, eco-innovation can be motivated by the need for minimising the costs of compliance with a stringent norm.

We may indicate that the studies that were reviewed use the sector as a control variable, so it is not an elaborated analysis. Only Kammerer (2009), who analyzes product eco-innovation in Germany’s electrical and electronic appliances sector, distinguishes between different branches of this industry (information and communication technologies, domestic appliances and medical appliances) and arrives to the conclusion that the effects are not significant.

Other studies, in general, come up with expected results. Kesidou and Demirel (2010), who base their study on the average investment in environmental R&D, observe that the most important sectors are the production of energy and water, fuel or coal, oil and nuclear and chemical products. Mazzanti and Zoboli (2006) highlight in their study that sector is



more important than size when considering not only the possibility to spend on R&D but also in the adoption of innovative output. The environmentally critical sectors, such as chemical, ceramic and also paper, seem to be more implicated in innovative dynamics. The econometric estimation confirms this observation for the chemical and ceramic sector, although the effects are not too strong.

For Frondel et al. (2008) abatement activities6 (a concept that they use as a proxy for the introduction of eco-innovations) are correlated with a strong environmental impact of a plant’s production processes, in that the most pollutant firms seem to innovate and introduce more abatement measures than less polluting firms. Their findings also confirm the existence of differences among industries, a result similar to the one observed by Hor-bach (2008). “Not surprisingly, there are significant sectoral differences, for example, the chemical industry as an environmentally intensive industry undertakes more innovations with environmental effects” (Horbach, 2008, p. 170). Additionally, this author values the variable “average sales” of new products per employee in a firm’s sector as an indicator for sectoral differences due to the divergent life cycle of new products. “The results show that firms belonging to sectors with high average sales of new products are more likely to innovate, be it environmental or other innovations.” (Horbach, 2008, p. 172)

From a different perspective, Belin et al. (2008) establish a hypothesis according to the evolutionist concept of sectoral technological regime and also according to the environ-mental pressure of the sector itself. The results of their estimation for German data show a significant impact of the energy intensity in the adoption of eco-innovations. According to the authors, this implies that the more energy intensive firms are the more determined to reduce this consumption. On the other hand, for the French data panel they observe that sectors that carry out larger investments in anti-pollution do not undertake eco-innovations. “This result may be due to the fact that PACE (Pollution Abatement Capital Expenditure) do not measure firms’ investments in eco-innovations but in end of pipe technologies and in the adoption of clean technology. So it can be interpreted by saying that in industrial sectors characterized by a high level of anti-pollution investments, firms invest less in ecoinnovative activities.” (Belin et al. 2009, p. 15).

C. The age

A priori, firm age has an ambiguous effect on eco-innovation activities. A company with a wide historical trajectory accumulates, according to the interactive model of techno-logical change, an experience or know-how that favours a fast response to a new opportu-nity. At the same time, the firm’s history can have a completely opposed effect. This occurs when routine dominates the business dynamics creating a barrier to any new opportunities which would mean breaking with a comfortable and stable way of producing throughout

6 According to OECD pollution abatement refers to technology applied or measure taken to reduce pollution and/or its impacts on the environment. The most commonly used technologies are scrubbers, noise mufflers, filters, incinerators, waste—water treatment facilities and composting of wastes. (http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=2076). For Frondel et al (2008) end-of-pipe technologies and cleaner production technologies constitute the two types of abatement measures, and are referred to changes in production technologies and / or product characteristics to reduce the environmental impact of activities.



the years –what is called a technological lock-in. Wagner (2007) finds a positive associa-tion between self-reported environmental innovation and age. Rehfeld et al. (2007) reach the conclusion that age has a very strong effect. “Therefore, it seems that there is often a threshold that has to be passed until a firm will undertake environmental product innova-tions again. When a firm is very young, obviously, everything in this firm is (environmen-tally) innovative. Subsequently, the (environmental) innovativeness decreases with firm age. However, more mature firms might have developed a broad internal knowledge base, which can lead to the realisation of further environmental product innovations. Further-more, firms obviously have to develop certain routines of (environmental) innovations to survive the market. Thus, firm age is not an obstacle”. (Rehfeld et al., 2007, p. 98).

For Rave et al (2011) there are different effects. On one hand, age is generally not sig-nificant when they compare eco-innovators and non eco-innovators, but in primary sectors younger firms drive the self-reported eco-innovation activities. Their findings also suggest older firms are more capable of giving continuity to eco-innovation.

3.2. Business logic

In this subsection we try to identify the factors that a company motivated by profit maximization logic typically considers. We analyze first to what extent cost savings act as a determinant to introduce eco-innovations and then, from another perspective, the firm’s interest in increasing the demand for its products.

A. Cost savings

Neoclassical theory considers that environmental problems are a source of costs that limit the competitiveness of firms. Innovation related to the mitigation of pollution or other environmental problems is frequently an answer to the obligation, imposed by norms and/or sanctions, of compensating the negative externality that the productive activities cause in terms of social welfare. In that sense, firms that are affected by a specific norm innovate in order to pay less.

Although eco-innovation can mean saving material or energy, or new valued attributes for products, its introduction also involves a cost, as it implies an investment in R&D, in the acquisition of a new technology, in the change of a specific process –given the existence of inter technological complementariness- or in the training of the employees, etc. Therefore, this factor can act as a barrier if it is considered that the change is too costly or the potential profits are not visible in the short term. This would question the Porter’s hypothesis accord-ing to which environmental innovation will be common given the confluence of firm goals of costs reduction –the authors think explicitly in materials and energy inputs saving- with the social goal of improving the environment (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995).

Papers studied in this review coincide in considering cost reduction a relevant factor, in most cases related to process innovation. Horbach (2008) and Horbach et al (2011) find that cost savings especially trigger eco-innovation in comparison with other conven-tional innovation. In this sense, the two studies highlight the role played by environmental



management tools to provide information about opportunities of potential cost reduction. Moreover, Horbach et al (2011) distinguish different environmental impacts of eco-in-novations and find that for energy-savings process innovations cost savings are the main motivation. In a similar way Belin et al. (2009) identify, in their proposal for a European regional pattern of eco-innovation, cost savings as one of the main goals of innovation, in particular the saving of material and energy that cleaner technologies promote. Moreover, these results are clearer for process innovations, a fact that confirms the authors’ hypothesis that eco-innovation is more related to processes in comparison to conventional innovation and clearly more related to the analysis of industrial sectors than to service activities. The work by Rave et al (2011) notes that self-reported eco-innovations are more often pursued to reduce production costs than conventional innovations. In addition, the reduction of energy and resource costs is the most important driver for the continuity of eco-innovation. This factor also has more influence on process than on product eco-innovations.

Kesidou and Demirel (2010) suggest two different profiles of firms that invest in en-vironmental R&D. Firms with a smaller level of investments are guided mainly by cost savings, the presence of environmental management systems and abatement costs (this last variable acts as a proxy to the stringency of the applicable environmental norm). Firms that have a greater involvement in environmental R&D are also motivated by cost savings and environmental management systems. However, they are not as influenced by abatement costs. For this reason, according to the authors, the normative pressure can be more effec-tive for the firms that are not at the “technological frontier” of environmental investments and not for the most advanced, in which other considerations have more importance. In a later study Demirel and Kesidou (2011) find that the desire of firms to improve their equip-ment works as a driver of investment in end of pipe and integrated technologies. “This suggests that firms consider the most energy efficient and environmentally friendly tech-nologies when they are renewing existing facilities” (Demirel and Kesidou, 2011, p.1553). In line with their previous study cost savings are significant as a determinant of investment in R&D. “Finally, the results suggest that environmental R&D is not only stimulated by regulation but it is also market driven, mainly motivated by the cost saving potential of the outcomes that arise from environmental R&D” (Demirel and Kesidou, 2011, p.1553). The authors note that the impact of this factor is lower in firms that were already investing in environmental R&D. For Frondel et al (2007) cost saving specially drivers investments in process integrated measures.

Frondel et al. (2008), assuming the correlation between the adoption of environmental management systems (EMS) and abatement measures conclude that the perceptions of survey respondents are associated negatively with the variable cost savings. For the authors this is due to the fact that businessmen expect the adoption of an EMS to be costly.

B. Demand factors

A typical firm is motivated by the expectations of increasing its turnover; therefore, when making relevant decisions on which investments to carry out and at which level, the firm takes into account market sensitivity to its products. For instance, Horbach (2008) measures the demand factor in two ways, as expected future demand, which matters for



the realization of environmental product innovation, and as expected increase of the level of employment –used as a proxy for turnover expectations- that is more important to other innovators than for environmental innovators. For Rave et al (2011) eco-innovations for the electrical and optical equipment sectors are relatively more pursued to secure market shares or to create new markets and this also stimulates the continuity of innovations. From their estimation, the opportunity to create new markets is a more important determinant of eco-patenting in relation to self-reported eco-innovations.

Nowadays there is a fashionable tendency for offering an ecological, green image, re-spectful with the environment. This has promoted an increasing interest in corporative so-cial responsibility (CSR), in the implementation of environmental management and audit schemes and in the marketing of the green attributes of products. Public administrations7 are themselves implementing green public procurement and integrated product policies which try to affect the valuation of products that have a green differential characteristic. Kesidou and Demirel (2010) try to contrast how factors, such as the adoption of policies of corporative social responsibility and the customers’ demand affect the firm decision of investing in environmental R&D as well as the subsequent level of investments. From their findings, the authors interpret that whilst these types of factors initially have the vir-tue of encouraging innovation in firms, they do not stimulate further innovations and it is probable that they do not increase investment. “While demand factors such as CSR and customer requirements are important initiators of eco-innovations, the presence of organi-zational capabilities and environmental regulations are the key factors that boost the level of eco-innovations.” (Kesidou and Demirel, 2010, p. 18).

Other works highlight the importance of this factor related to product eco-innovation. Horbach et al (2011) find that demand is quantitatively important for all analysed areas re-garding to product (energy consumption, emission reductions of air, water, soil and noise, and recycling) but especially for energy consumption because of a specific regulation pull effect. Kammerer (2009) assumes that “green” can be a form of differentiation, generating a competitive advantage. On the other hand, he acknowledges that it can involve certain commercialization difficulties, because of consumers’ adversity to pay bigger prices for attributes that they do not value completely yet. Then, he tries to point out that if the firm is able to transfer part of the public benefit –the lesser impact on the environment- to the customer, that is, if the firm is able to make the consumer perceive that the characteristics of the product can provide a direct benefit –such as costs and energy savings, better quality, etc.-, allowing him to appropriate of a part of the added value, then, it is more probable that the firm carries out environmental innovations. According to his econometric estimation, the greater potential of customer benefit a firm attributes to an environmental matter, the greater the chance that it carries out the improvement and that it extends this to a larger range of products. Moreover, this factor significantly affects the possibility that a firm de-velops innovations for the market. Kammerer derives the following conclusions: “Thus, a further fruitful area for regulators is the creation of market conditions that transform the en-vironmental quality of products into a direct benefit for customers. This could mean taxes on resources and emissions but also differentiated rights of use in dependence of products’

7 See e. g. European Comission DG Environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ipp/



environmental performance.” (Kammerer, 2009, p. 2293). Similarly, Rehfeld et al. (2007) consider that customer satisfaction is an important factor to obtain a competitive advantage in the main sales market, because of the higher price of eco-innovative products compared to conventional ones. They confirm that the effect is especially important for environmen-tal product innovations. On the contrary, Rave et al (2011) find an insignificant influence of customer demand and social pressure on product eco-innovation.

The last factor analyzed among the variables of demand is the firm’s sales market in question. The assumption is that a company orientated to the international market is sub-mitted to a greater competitive pressure and therefore, is more likely to carry out some type of eco-innovation. Rehfeld et al. (2008) analyze a firm’s exporting activity as a proxy to its market orientation but concludes that it is not a relevant factor for product eco-innovations. “It seems that most environmentally friendly products are still marketed on regional or national niche rather than on global markets.” (Rehfeld et al., 2007, p. 98). On the con-trary, Horbach (2008), who relates the sector variable to the exporting activity, comes to a different result. According to his findings, sectors such as machinery (electrical) or engine vehicles, which maintain high shares of export and which are strongly exposed to interna-tional competition, compared to others such as agriculture, mining and energy, are more prone to innovate.

3.3. Technological competence

In this section we refer to the accumulation of knowledge capital necessary to develop and / or adopt new products and processes. Investment in R&D is one of the main condi-tions to obtain new knowledge and to develop innovations. Besides codified knowledge and general information we also must take into account the combination of different skills and knowledge bases within firm that conform which are called tacit knowledge and rou-tines. In that sense, a qualified staff is essential in order to the adoption of an innovation fits in the firm’s productive process or even to be able to introduce some improvements accord-ing to staff’s suggestions. Furthermore, the existence of industrial relationships among the main actors of the production chain, or the participation in networks and the collaboration with research institutes also contribute to a greater innovative dynamism within firms.

In relation to environmental innovation, one of the most interesting works in this cat-egory is the one that Mazzanti and Zoboli (2006) carry out through two surveys of firms in an Italian industrial district. They suggest this list of drivers for innovation:

• Firm participation in groups and network activities • Industrial relations “orientated to innovation” and less hierarchical organizations• Environmental costs (related to policy)• R&D• Voluntary programs of environmental auditThe particular interest of this study lies in the characterization of the studied sample

itself, because it shows the double externality characteristic of eco-innovations. The harm-ful effects on the environment of high density industrial concentration can be compensated with a bigger propensity to innovate by the district’s firms, which exploiting the network



relationships and the spillovers of knowledge due to the proximity and internal sources, can dynamically increase the environmental efficiency of that productive area.

We highlight some interesting data that the authors obtain from primary observation:• 79% of the firms adopted innovations related to the environment in at least one of the

four areas consulted (emissions, wastes and management, inputs of material, sources of energy) but only 10% in all of them.

• Less than 2% of the sample has patents related to the environment; therefore, this is not a good indicator of the eco-innovation output.

• With regards to the environmental issue cooperation between firms through networks is remarkable: 28% material input and 41% reduction of emissions. The percentage of firms that develop innovation activities by themselves is very high if it is related to inputs of material, 62% and goes down for the reduction of emissions, 34%. How-ever, there is not much cooperation with Universities and research centres. “We see that the role played by networking dynamics, which is crucial in industrial district areas, is relevant, as expected, also for environmental issues.” (Mazzanti and Zoboli, 2006, p. 11)

• In relation with innovation inputs, 61 firms present positive R&D related to the envi-ronmental issues and other 72 positive capital investments.

From a bivariate analysis the study also finds that the innovation dynamics, on the tech-nological side as in the technical-organizational one, are as a rule highly correlated “per-haps because environmental innovations are pursued by a limited number of innovative firms, which are more committed on all environmental grounds” (Mazzanti and Zoboli, 2006, p. 13).

According to their econometric analysis being member of a group and developing net-work activities –represented in the study as the driving force behind “economies of scale”-, are greater than the influence of the size factor, both in the promotion of R&D and in the result. Moreover, R&D shows up as one of the primary drivers of most innovation outputs. When analyzing which factors influence the possibility to carry out investments in R&D related to environmental innovation, they highlight the network activities with other firms and research institutes. According to the authors, this suggests a certain causal relationship: networks/cooperation → R&D → innovations. “Our investigation suggests that network-ing relationships aimed at building up social capital, instrumental to creating and introduc-ing innovations, and “membership” to a district or a group, are factors as important, if not more, than a firm’s structural characteristics. It is worth noting that a three-factor link might emerge: networking “investments” and research-oriented relationships are possibly influencing (and theoretically being complementary to) R&D/environmental investments. Then, and consequently, R&D is one of the inputs driving the adoption of innovative out-put.” (Mazzanti and Zoboli, 2006, p. 21).

In regards to cooperation Horbach et al (2011) also confirm that eco-innovators are more likely to cooperate with other firms than other innovators. Rave et al (2011) find that eco-innovations for the market are more stimulated by major technological advancements, network activities –which include cooperation with universities- than those innovations only new to the firm. In addition, according to the study by Horbach et al (2011), self-com-



mitment –a factor which is understood as a hybrid form of regulation and market push-, is an important determinant of process and product eco-innovations –especially for recycling.

The importance of investment in R&D as a determinant of eco-innovation is also con-firmed by Frondel et al (2007) especially for cleaner technologies, and Horbach (2008). The latter confirms the influence of the firm’s trajectory throughout time, what is termed existence of path dependencies: “General and environmental innovative firms in the past are also more likely to innovate in the present.” (Horbach, 2008, p. 172). The study also points out that the high qualification of the employees in environmental firms –as an indi-cator of technological competence-, promotes the introduction of environmental product innovations.

On the contrary, various authors obtain some weaker findings (see e.g. Rehfeld et al., 2007 or Kammerer, 2009). Kammerer, who uses R&D as a proxy for a firm’s innovative capacity, does not obtain significant results with regard to the possibility of introducing product eco-innovations, and he does not find relation with the extent or with the degree of novelty of them either. The author attributes this result to operational differences in the variable. While Kammerer uses the share of employees in R&D, other studies measure whether the firm carries out activities of R&D or not. “Another explanation could be that the impact of R&D activities on environmental product innovation is sector specific and not very relevant for the electrical and electronic appliances industry”. (Kammerer, 2009, p. 2292)

3.4. Environmental strategy / management and marketing innovations

We put together in this category a series of measures that constitute, themselves, or-ganizational or marketing innovations and which we identify as indicative of the existence of an environmental strategy within the company. We would expect these measures to influence the development and/or adoption of another type of eco-innovation.

One of the most common measures analyzed are the environmental management sys-tems in accordance with the international norm ISO 14001 or the European Eco-Manage-ment and Audit Scheme (EMAS). These programs entail a series of practices related to the integration of environmental concerns with production decisions, the adoption of practices and methods of improvement, which involve a certain self-regulation by the company. Apart from this, they also mean the compliance with some environmental controls as well as the evaluation and registered report of the fulfilment with the program. There is a great debate on whether these types of flexible policy instruments are truly effective in achiev-ing environmental goals. Some authors consider EMS as “a vital supplement to mandatory environmental policies based on regulation and legislation.” (Frondel et al., 2008, p. 154).

In several studies the relationship between the implementation of an EMS and the de-velopment and adoption of eco-innovations is associated with the generation of informa-tion that allows firms to initiate environmental research and learning processes with re-gards to the possibilities of improving processes and products. In turn, this is determined by a firm’s environmental commitment (Horbach, 2008; Wagner, 2008) or to its strength in environmental issues (Kesidou and Demirel, 2010). “Environmental management tools help to reduce the information deficits to detect cost saving potentials (specifically material



and energy savings) that are also an important driving force of environmental innovation following our econometric analysis. In fact, these results seem to be very important for the design of a joint research and environmental policy: an environmentally oriented research policy not only has to regard traditional instruments like the improvement of the tech-nological capabilities of a firm but also the coordination with soft environmental policy instruments like the introduction of environmental management systems.” (Horbach, 2008, p. 172).

According to Rave et al (2011) the EMS is positively related to eco-innovation when compared to conventional innovation; it leads to more continuous eco-innovation activities and acts as a relatively important determinant of eco-innovations only new to the firm. With regard to types of innovation, they find a positive association with process eco-innovations and a negative association with product eco-innovation. Most of the studies find a positive relationship between EMS and process innovation but no effect on product innovation (e.g., Rennings et al, 2006; Wagner, 2007; Horbach et al, 2011).

Sometimes, the relationship between EMS and innovation depends on how the imple-mentation of EMS is measured. For instance, Wagner (2007) builds an index to control the level of implementation of EMS in opposition to certification because of the opportunistic behaviour and institutional problems that it can generate. We also can highlight the study by Rennings et al (2006) which focuses on the influence of the different characteristics of EMAS, such as the maturity of the scheme, its organizational scope –strong participa-tion of general management, distribution and R&D department in further development of EMAS- and its strategic importance. All these characteristics are found to be important determinants of environmental process innovations and not related to product eco-inno-vations. Nevertheless, according to their estimation, learning processes triggered by EMS have a positive influence on environmental product innovations.

Frondel et al (2007) and Demirel and Kesidou (2011) distinguish the influence of the EMS depending on the type of process eco-innovation. While the former acknowledges the positive influence of general management systems and that specific environmental management tools tend to favour clean production, Demirel and Kesidou consider it is an important driver for investment in environmental R&D and end of pipe technologies, whereas it has no effect in integrated technologies. “A plausible explanation of this finding is related to the innovative heterogeneity of firms where the least innovative firms benefit from having an organizational environmental structure to support them with the minimum compliance requirements through end of pipeline while the most innovative firms use EMS as an innovation platform to build upon for environmental R&D.” (Demirel and Kesidou, 2011, p.1554).

Other studies grant these schemes relative importance in the promotion of eco-innova-tion (or minor importance, as Rehfeld et al, 2007). Although Mazzanti and Zoboli (2006) found a positive relationship between innovation outputs and voluntary audit schemes, they still conclude that the innovative content of these programs is related to the fact that only a limited number of innovative firms really exploit them. According to the study by Frondel et al (2008) the most important reasons to introduce an audit program are the desire to improve corporate image, to save in the management of waste and the use of resources as well as to increase the efforts in complying with norms. The study does not find association between abatement activities and the adoption of EMS. Therefore, they



conclude that the adoption of EMS does not seem to stimulate innovation and abatement measures. “(...) [it] appears to be particularly plausible in the absence of sanctions on lack of improvement (Frondel et al., 2008, p. 158)ˮ.

Finally, to close this category, we identify the impact of some organizational and marketing measures in eco-innovation –primarily product eco-innovation-, such as the consideration of environmental criteria in product planning and development, life cycle assessment activities of products, waste disposal or take-back systems of own products, eco-labelling, provision of information, benchmarking, and so on. These are identified by Kammerer (2009) as firms’ green capabilities and he proves that as a whole, these skills positively influence the accomplishment of eco-innovations, extension of eco-innovation to a wide range of products as well as the possibility to offer a greater degree of novelty. Rehfeld et al (2007) also recognise the importance of measures related to waste disposal or take-back systems. “Thus, if a manufacturer has a continued interest in his product, even after its useful phase, environmentally friendly product innovations such as recycling are far more probable.” (Rehfeld et al, 2007, p. 98).

In a similar way, Wagner (2008) argues that these measures provide an additional posi-tive effect in a firm’s propensity to develop an eco-innovation. The author identifies the following causal relations:

• The market research on green products leads to a better understanding of the demand for product innovations with environmental characteristics; or it also enables firms to identify environmentally orientated consumer segments. It also triggers an increase in process innovation, which could be related to the new products requirements.

• The experience with eco-labelling can result in better knowledge about the product benefits, acting as an incentive for the firm to develop new eco-products as well as favouring internal training.

• Giving information to consumers can induce additional demand if there is an envi-ronmentally orientated segment of consumers, acting also as an incentive so that a firm carries out a product eco-innovation.

Although all these studies consider the influence in product innovation, Rennings et al (2006) also find that the explicit consideration of environmental aspects in product devel-opment has a positive influence on environmental process innovations.

4. conclusIons

The singularity of eco-innovation with regard to conventional innovation resides in its favourable effect on the environment, which improves social well being. The concept tries to highlight the compatibility between two traditionally opposed goals such as the improvement of business competitiveness and the environmental care.

There is an increasing body of empirical literature on the factors that influences eco-innovation. A number of studies have contrasted the importance that, because of the double externality that characterizes eco-innovation, environmental policy instruments have to promote the development and diffusion of this kind of innovation. In this paper we have tried to integrate the findings of several econometric analyses on those other factors that



depend on the characteristics and impulses of the firms themselves and on demand side issues. This effort involves certain risks as findings of different studies are difficult to com-pare because they use several methodological approaches and take different assumptions as starting points. Nevertheless, this paper can be understood as an overall picture.

As a synthesis, we highlight the main results of this review:• In relation to structural characteristics, the industrial sector constitutes a relevant

factor as a determinant for the introduction of eco-innovations, usually related to the most polluting character of the activity as well as the intensive use of energy and materials. Most of the studies point to a certain influence of size on eco-innovation.

• Eco-innovation is not contrary to business logic. Cost savings constitute one of the main criteria to take decisions on investments on eco-innovations. In that sense, the lack of knowledge about the potential of technologies, material and energy savings, etc. can act as a barrier to their application due to the lack of immediate visible results.

• In relation to products, taking into account customers desires and expectations can be crucial to give the producers a strong incentive to expand their markets through eco-innovations.

• As with conventional innovation, technological capabilities are a very relevant fac-tor. There are some authors that hold that eco-innovation depends more on external knowledge sources due to its superior dependence on basic research, than conven-tional innovation (Belin et al., 2009). Based on the literature review the importance of relations and cooperation with external actors is also clear.

• There is a series of organizational and marketing innovations that also constitute a factor that triggers other types of eco-innovations. Although there is mixed evidence on the real impact of environmental management systems it seems that these flexible tools can help to provide some minimal information on the activities impact and to induce an environmental strategy within firms, which in turn favours the develop-ment and / or adoption of eco-innovation.

• Other managerial measures, such as take back activities of products, life cycle assess-ment of own products and eco-labelling are specifically aimed to improve products, so it is expected and confirmed that they foster eco-innovation.

In conclusion, we have to defend the role of supply and demand side instruments in supporting eco-innovation. The integration of environmental issues with business logic does not have to mean a loss in firm competitiveness. Basing in the review it is clear that a policy response must be appropriate to each type of eco-innovation (product, process or organizational), degree of novelty (new to the company vs. new to the market), etc.

There are some factors that the literature identifies as strong determinants of eco-in-novation, especially the ones related to technological competence. We highlight the need to facilitate the investments in R&D, in training as well as the promotion of cooperation and networks. There is also a need for extending the responsibility of producers on their processes and products, and this is why voluntary schemes as a type of flexible policy instrument could be complementarily relevant. On demand side, it is important to provide information to customers and also not to ignore their requirements as they can signal a potential market segment.



Because of the social character of the benefits that eco-innovation can bring, we think it is convenient to claim a prominent role for a stringent public policy, which, whilst it obliges and contributes towards increasing firm awareness on the impact of its products and processes, it also encourages the active search of alternatives, even if it is only for cost savings or expanding market motivations.

5. AcKnowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the European Regional Develop-ment Fund (ERDF) and from Xunta de Galicia (Competitive Reference Group 2008/041 and Project 08SEC008201PR).

6. references

ANDERSEN, M. M. (2008): “Eco-innovation – towards a taxonomy and a theory”. Paper for the DRUID conference, Copenhagen.

ASHFORD, N. A. (2005): “Government and Environmental Innovation in Europe and North Amer-ica”, in Weber, M. and Hemmelskamp, J. (Eds.): Towards Environmental Innovation Systems. Berlin: Springer, pp. 159-174.

BELIN, J.; HORBACH, J. and OLTRA, V. (2009): “Determinants and specificities of eco-innova-tions – An econometric analysis for France and Germany based on the Community Innovation Survey”. Paper for the DIME Workshop on Environmental Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Entrepreneurship, Utrecht University.

COHEN, W. M. (2010): “Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance”, in Hall, B. H. and Rosenberg, N. (Eds): Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. The Nether-lands: North-Holland, Vol. I, pp. 129-213.

DEL RÍO, P. G. (2009): “The empirical analysis of the determinants for environmental technological change: A research agenda”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 68, pp. 861-878.

DEMIREL, P. and KESIDOU, E. (2011): “Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the UK: Government policies and firm motivations”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, pp. 1546-1557.

FRONDEL, M.; HORBACH, J. and RENNINGS, K. (2007): “End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries”. Busi-ness Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 16, pp. 571-584.

FRONDEL, M.; HORBACH, J. and RENNINGS, K. (2008): “What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 153-160.

FUSSLER, C. and JAMES, P. (1996): Driving Eco-Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for In-novation and Sustainability. London, Pitman Publishing.

HORBACH, J. (2008): “Determinants of environmental innovation – New evidence from German panel data sources”. Research Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 163-173.

HORBACH, J.; RAMMER, C. and RENNINGS, K. (2011): Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact. The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. (Discussion paper no. 11-027) ZEW. Available at ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11027.pdf

HUPPES, G.; KLEIJN, R.; HUELE, R.; EKINS, P.; SHAW, B.; ESDERS, M. and SCHALTEGGER, S. (2008): “Measuring eco-innovation: Framework and tipology of indicators based on causal chains. Final report of the Ecodrive Project”. London. Available at http//www.europe-innova.eu/web/guest/eco-innovation/eco-innovation.library/reports



JAFFE, A. B.; NEWELL, R. G. and STAVINS, R. N. (2003): “Technological change and the envi-ronment”, in Mäler, K-G. and Vincent, J. R. (eds.): Handbook of Environmental Economics. The Netherlands: North-Holland, Vol. I, pp. 461-516.

KAMMERER, D. (2009): “The effects of customer benefit and regulation on environmental product innovation. Empirical evidence from appliance manufacturers in Germany”. Ecological Eco-nomics, Vol. 68, pp. 2285-2295.

KEMP, R. and PEARSON, P. (2007): “Final report MEI about measuring ecoinnovation”. Available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/19/43960830.pdf

KESIDOU, E. and DEMIREL, P. (2010): On the drivers of eco-innovations: empirical evidence from the UK. (Working Paper 2010-03). Nottingham University Business School Research.

LANOIE, P.; LAURENT-LUCCHETTI, J.; JOHNSTONE and N. AMBEC, S. (2007): Environmen-tal policy, innovation and performance: new insights on the Porter Hypothesis. (Working paper 2007s-19). Cirano.

LUNDVALL, B.-A. (1992): “Introduction”, in: Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter Publishers, pp. 1-19.

MAZZANTI, M. and ZOBOLI, R. (2006): Examining the factors influencing environmental in-novations. (Working paper 20.2006). Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei. Available at www.feem.it/Feem/Pub/Publications/Wpapers/default.htm

OECD (2005): Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. 3st edi-tion. Spanish version Tragsa (2006). Available at http://www.conacyt.gob.sv/Indicadores%20Sector%20Academcio/Manual_de_Oslo%2005.pdf

OLTRA, V. (2008): Environmental innovation and industrial dynamics: the contributions of evolu-tionary economics. (Working Papers of GREThA, N°. 2008-28) Available at http://ideas.repec.org/p/grt/wpegrt/2008-28.html.

PORTER, M. and VAN DER LINDE, C. (1995): “Towards a New Conceptualization of the Environ-ment-Competitiveness Relationship”. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 9 (4), pp. 97-118.

RAVE, T.; GOETZKE, F. and LARCH, M. (2011): The determinants of environmental innovations and patenting: Germany reconsidered. (Ifo Working Paper N°. 97)

REHFELD, K-M.; RENNINGS, K. and ZIEGLER, A. (2007): “Integrated product policy and en-vironmental product innovations: An empirical analysis”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 61, pp. 91-100.

RENNINGS, K. (2000): “Redefining Innovation - Eco-innovation Research and the Contribution from Ecological Economics”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 319-322.

RENNINGS, K.; ZIEGLER, A.; ANKELE, K. and HOFFMAN, E. (2006): “The influence of dif-ferent characteristics of the EU environmental management and audit scheme on technical envi-ronmental innovations and economic performance”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 57, pp. 45-59.

ROSENBERG, N. (1993): Dentro de la caja negra: tecnología y economía. 1st ed. Barcelona: La Llar del Llibre.

TRIEBSWETTER, U. and WACKERBAUER, J. (2008): “Integrated environmental product inno-vation in the region of Munich and its impact on firm competitiveness”. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16, pp. 1484-1493.

VOLLEBERGH, H. (2007): “Impacts of environmental policy instruments on technological change”. Available at http//www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf

WAGNER, M. (2007): “On the relationship between environmental management, environmental innovation and patenting: Evidence from German manufacturing firms”. Research Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 1587-1602.

WAGNER, M. (2008): “Empirical influence of environmental management on innovation: Evidence from Europe”. Ecological Economics, Vol. 66, pp. 392-402.

WEBSTER, J. and WATSON, R.T. (2002): “Analyzing the past to prepare for the future; writing a literature review”. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26, N°. 2, pp. 13-23.



App

end

IX A

TAB

LE A

.1.

sum

mA

rY:

fo

cu

s A

nd

mA

In r

esu

lts

fro

m t

he

lIte

rAt

ur

e r

evIe

w

AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

BEL

IN, J

., H

OR

BA

CH

, J.

and

OLT

RA

, V.

(200

9)

4th

CIS

200

2-20

04 fo

r Fra

nce

and

Ger

man

y (M

annh

eim

In-

nova

tion

Pane

l, 20

05).

The

pape

r aim

s to

cont

rib-

ute

to p

rovi

de “

inte

rna-

tiona

l” st

yliz

ed fa

cts a

bout

de

term

inan

ts a

nd a

lso

regi

onal

cha

ract

eris

tics o

f ec

o-in

nova

tions

.

• M

arke

t cha

ract

eris

tics a

nd c

ompe

ti-tio

n co

nditi

ons

• In

nova

tive

activ

ities

of fi

rms

• K

now

ledg

e ba

ses a

nd in

form

atio

n so

urce

s•

Mai

n ef

fect

s of i

nnov

ativ

e ac

tiviti

es•

App

ropr

iabi

lity

of in

nova

tion

• B

arrie

rs to

inno

vatio

n•

Tech

nolo

gica

l reg

imes

and

sect

oral

va

riabl

es

• C

entra

l rol

e of

regu

latio

n an

d co

st

savi

ngs a

s mot

ivat

ions

for e

co-

inno

vatio

ns.

• Ec

o-in

nova

tive

activ

ities

seem

to

requ

ire m

ore

exte

rnal

sour

ces o

f kn

owle

dge

and

info

rmat

ion

than

in

nova

tion

in g

ener

al.

DEM

IREL

, P.

and

KES

IDO

U,

E. (2

011)

289

UK

firm

s, D

EFR

A G

over

n-m

ent S

urve

y of

En

viro

nmen

-ta

l Pro

tect

ion

Expe

nditu

re b

y In

dust

ry, 2

005

and

2006

The

pape

r exa

min

es th

e ro

le o

f ext

erna

l pol

icy

tool

s and

inte

rnal

firm

spe-

cific

fact

ors f

or st

imul

at-

ing

thre

e di

ffere

nt ty

pes o

f ec

o-in

nova

tions

that

rang

e on

a sp

ectru

m o

f low

er to

hi

gher

tech

nolo

gica

l and

en

viro

nmen

tal i

mpa

cts:

en

d-of

-pip

elin

e po

llutio

n co

ntro

l tec

hnol

ogie

s, in

te-

grat

ed c

lean

er p

rodu

ctio

n te

chno

logi

es a

nd e

nviro

n-m

enta

l R&

D.

• Ex

tern

al e

nviro

nmen

tal p

olic

y in

stru

men

ts•

Org

aniz

atio

nal c

apab

ilitie

s in

the

area

of e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n:

EMS,

ISO

140

01•

Effic

ienc

y: c

ost s

avin

gs a

nd e

quip

-m

ent u

pgra

des u

nder

take

n w

ith th

e pu

rpos

e of

env

ironm

enta

l pro

tec-

tion

• C

orpo

rate

imag

e: C

orpo

rate

Soc

ial

Res

pons

ibili

ty (C

SR)

• Fi

rm st

ruct

ural

cha

ract

eris

tics:

size

, tu

rnov

er, p

rodu

ctiv

ity, t

otal

cap

ital

• En

d of

pip

e (E

OP)

Tec

hnol

ogie

s an

d In

tegr

ated

Cle

aner

Pro

duct

ion

Tech

nolo

gies

are

mai

nly

driv

en b

y eq

uipm

ent u

pgra

de m

otiv

es w

ith a

vi

ew o

f im

prov

ing

effic

ienc

y.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l reg

ulat

ions

are

ef

fect

ive

in st

imul

atin

g th

e EO

P te

chno

logi

es a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal

R&

D.

• M

arke

t fac

tors

, mai

nly

mot

ivat

ed

by c

ost s

avin

gs, a

re e

ffect

ive

in

driv

ing

envi

ronm

enta

l R&

D.

• IS

O 1

4001

cer

tifica

tion

is e

ffect

ive

in st

reng

then

ing

the

posi

tive

impa

ct

of e

nviro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

s on

both

EO

P te

chno

logi

es

and

envi

ronm

enta

l R&

D.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

FRO

ND

EL, M

., H

OR

BA

CH

, J.

and

REN

-N

ING

S, K

. (2

007)

4,18

6 m

anuf

ac-

turin

g fa

cilit

ies,

OC

DE

surv

ey o

n en

viro

nmen

tal

polic

y to

ols a

nd

thei

r im

pact

on

firm

man

age-

men

t pra

ctic

es in

m

anuf

actu

ring,

7

coun

tries

, 200

3.

The

pape

r ana

lyze

s a v

a-rie

ty o

f fac

tors

that

mig

ht

enha

nce

firm

s’ pr

open

-si

ty to

impl

emen

t cle

aner

pr

oduc

tion

tech

nolo

gies

in

stea

d of

end

-of-

pipe

te

chno

logi

es.

• M

otiv

atio

ns: c

orpo

rate

imag

e im

prov

emen

ts, c

ost s

avin

gs, p

o-te

ntia

l avo

idan

ce o

f env

ironm

enta

l in

cide

nts.

• En

viro

nmen

tal p

olic

y in

stru

-m

ents

: mar

ket b

ased

inst

rum

ents

, in

form

atio

n m

easu

res,

volu

ntar

y ag

reem

ents

and

subs

idie

s; p

olic

y st

ringe

ncy.

• M

anag

emen

t too

ls: h

ealth

and

sa

fety

man

agem

ent s

yste

ms a

nd

proc

ess o

r job

con

trol s

yste

ms,

writ

ten

envi

ronm

enta

l pol

icie

s, in

tern

al e

nviro

nmen

tal a

udits

, en-

viro

nmen

tal a

ccou

ntin

g an

d pu

blic

en

viro

nmen

tal r

epor

ts.

• Pr

essu

re g

roup

s: u

nion

s, in

tern

al

forc

es a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal g

reen

or

gani

zatio

ns.

• Fa

cilit

y ch

arac

teris

tics:

size

, tur

no-

ver,

offic

er re

spon

sibl

e fo

r env

i-ro

nmen

tal c

once

rns,

envi

ronm

enta

l R

&D

bud

get a

nd c

ompe

titio

n.

• R

egul

ator

y m

easu

res a

nd th

e st

rin-

genc

y of

env

ironm

enta

l pol

icie

s ar

e m

ore

impo

rtant

for e

nd-o

f-pi

pe

tech

nolo

gies

.•

Cos

t sav

ings

, gen

eral

man

agem

ent

syst

ems a

nd sp

ecifi

c en

viro

nmen

tal

man

agem

ent t

ools

tend

to fa

vour

cl

ean

prod

uctio

n.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

FRO

ND

EL, M

., H

OR

BA

CH

, J.

and

REN

-N

ING

S, K

. (2

008)

899

Ger

man

fa

cilit

ies O

CD

E su

rvey

on

EMS

adop

tion

deci

sion

, 7

coun

tries

, 200

3.

The

pape

r trie

s to

prov

e th

e co

rrel

atio

n be

twee

n th

e re

leva

nt in

cent

ives

for

a fir

m’s

vol

unta

ry a

dop-

tion

of a

n EM

S an

d its

en

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

n be

havi

our.

• Pr

essu

re g

roup

s: p

ublic

aut

horit

ies,

unio

ns, i

nter

nal f

orce

s, cu

stom

ers

and

envi

ronm

enta

l gre

en o

rgan

iza-

tions

.•

Mot

ivat

ions

: cor

pora

te im

age

impr

ovem

ents

, cos

t sav

ings

, po-

tent

ial a

void

ance

of e

nviro

nmen

tal

inci

dent

s and

com

plia

nce

with

en

viro

nmen

tal r

egul

atio

n.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l pol

icy

tool

s: m

arke

t ba

sed

inst

rum

ents

, reg

ulat

ory

mea

s-ur

es, i

nfor

mat

ion

mea

sure

s and

su

bsid

ies;

pol

icy

strin

genc

y.•

Faci

lity

char

acte

ristic

s: si

ze, e

n-vi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

s of p

ollu

tion,

de

partm

ent o

r offi

cer r

espo

nsib

le

for e

nviro

nmen

tal c

once

rns.

• En

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

n ac

tivi-

ties a

re n

ot a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith E

MS

impl

emen

tatio

n or

any

oth

er si

ngle

po

licy

inst

rum

ent.

• In

nova

tion

beha

viou

r see

ms t

o be

m

ainl

y co

rrel

ated

with

the

strin

-ge

ncy

of e

nviro

nmen

tal p

olic

y.

HO

RB

AC

H, J

. (2

008)

Two

Ger

man

Pa

nel d

atab

ase

– 75

3 fir

ms I

nstit

ute

for E

mpl

oym

ent

Res

earc

h (I

AB

), 20

01 a

nd 2

004

- 4,

846

firm

s Man

-nh

eim

inno

vatio

n pa

nel (

MIP

) of

the

Cen

tre fo

r Eu-

rope

an E

cono

mic

R

esea

rch

(ZEW

)),

2001

The

pape

r aim

s to

expl

ore

the

dete

rmin

ants

of e

nvi-

ronm

enta

l inn

ovat

ions

.

• A

ge, d

eman

d, e

nviro

nmen

tal

man

agem

ent t

ools

, hig

h qu

alifi

ed

empl

oyee

s, ov

ertim

e w

orke

d, p

rofit

si

tuat

ion,

regi

on, R

&D

, siz

e, su

bsi-

dies

, sec

tor d

umm

ies.

• Th

e im

prov

emen

t of t

echn

olog

ical

ca

pabi

litie

s thr

ough

R+D

trig

gers

en

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

ns.

• En

viro

nmen

tal r

egul

atio

n, e

nvi-

ronm

enta

l man

agem

ent t

ools

and

ge

nera

l org

aniz

atio

nal c

hang

es a

lso

enco

urag

e en

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

a-tio

n.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

HO

RB

AC

H,

J., R

AM

MER

, C

. and

REN

-N

ING

S, K

. (2

011)

Ger

man

CIS

of

2009

- 7,

061

firm

s fr

om in

dust

rial

and

serv

ice

sec-

tors

, and

an

ad-

ditio

nal t

elep

hone

su

rvey

– 1

,294

fir

ms

The

pape

r trie

s to

test

w

heth

er d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of

eco-

inno

vatio

ns (a

ccor

d-in

g to

thei

r env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s) a

re d

riven

by

diffe

rent

fact

ors.

• Po

licy

mea

sure

s: re

gula

tions

, su

bsid

ies.

• Se

lf-co

mm

itmen

t of i

ndus

try.

• C

usto

mer

dem

and,

cos

t sav

ings

.•

Tech

nolo

gy p

ush:

kno

wle

dge

capi

-ta

l and

infr

astru

ctur

e, e

nviro

nmen

-ta

l man

agem

ent s

yste

ms.

• O

rgan

izat

iona

l in

nova

tions

.•

Info

rmat

ion

sour

ces.

• C

oope

ratio

n.•

Com

petit

ion

cond

ition

s.•

Oth

er c

ontro

l var

iabl

es

• C

urre

nt a

nd e

xpec

ted

gove

rnm

ent

regu

latio

n is

par

ticul

arly

impo

rtant

fo

r pus

hing

firm

s to

redu

ce a

ir,

wat

er o

r noi

se e

mis

sion

s, av

oid

haza

rdou

s sub

stan

ces a

nd in

crea

se

recy

clab

ility

of p

rodu

cts.

• C

ost s

avin

gs a

re a

n im

porta

nt

mot

ivat

ion

for r

educ

ing

ener

gy a

nd

mat

eria

l use

. •

Cus

tom

er re

quire

men

ts a

re a

noth

er

impo

rtant

sour

ce fo

r eco

-inno

-va

tions

, esp

ecia

lly p

rodu

cts w

ith

impr

oved

env

ironm

enta

l per

for-

man

ce a

nd p

roce

ss in

nova

tions

that

in

crea

se m

ater

ial e

ffici

ency

, red

uce

ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

was

te a

nd

the

use

of d

ange

rous

subs

tanc

es.

• Fi

rms c

onfir

m a

hig

h im

porta

nce

of

expe

cted

futu

re re

gula

tions

for a

ll en

viro

nmen

tal p

rodu

ct in

nova

tions

.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

KA

MM

ERER

, D

. (20

09)

Onl

ine

surv

ey o

f 92

Ger

man

firm

s in

the

sect

or o

f el

ectri

cal a

nd

elec

troni

c ap

pli-

ance

s, 20

04-2

006

The

pape

r see

ks to

un-

ders

tand

env

ironm

enta

l pr

oduc

t (EP

) inn

ovat

ion

by in

trodu

cing

and

test

ing

a no

vel r

esea

rch

fram

e-w

ork:

EP-

inno

vatio

n is

st

udie

d sp

ecifi

cally

for

four

env

ironm

enta

l iss

ues

rele

vant

to th

e ta

rget

in-

dust

ry; c

usto

mer

ben

efit i

s in

clud

ed fo

r the

firs

t tim

e as

exp

lana

tory

var

iabl

e; it

m

easu

res t

he e

xten

t and

le

vel o

f nov

elty

of E

P-in

nova

tion.

• R

egul

ator

y st

ringe

ncy.

• C

usto

mer

ben

efit.

• G

reen

cap

abili

ties:

cer

tified

EM

S,

use

of p

rodu

cts’

envi

ronm

enta

l at

tribu

tes i

n m

arke

ting,

vol

unta

ry

envi

ronm

enta

l tar

gets

for p

rodu

cts,

syst

emat

ic e

nviro

nmen

tal a

naly

sis

of p

rodu

cts e

nviro

nmen

tal t

rain

ing

for p

rodu

ct d

evel

oper

s.•

Con

trol v

aria

bles

: siz

e, R

&D

ex

pend

iture

.

• Th

e re

sults

supp

ort t

he is

sue

leve

l as

uni

t of a

naly

sis.

• C

usto

mer

ben

efit a

nd re

gula

tion

play

a k

ey ro

le fo

r env

ironm

enta

l pr

oduc

t inn

ovat

ion.

• Th

ese

fact

ors a

lso

fost

er th

eir

broa

d ap

plic

atio

n an

d th

eir l

evel

of

nove

lty.

KES

IDO

U, E

. an

d D

EMIR

EL,

P. (2

010)

1,56

6 U

K fi

rms -

G

over

nmen

t Sur

-ve

y of

Env

iron-

men

tal P

rote

ctio

n Ex

pend

iture

by

Indu

stry

200

5-20

06

This

pap

er p

rovi

des

empi

rical

insi

ghts

on

the

driv

ers (

envi

ronm

enta

l re

gula

tions

and

supp

ly a

nd

dem

and

side

fact

ors)

of

eco-

inno

vatio

ns (d

ecis

ion

and

leve

l inv

estm

ent)

• D

eman

d si

de fa

ctor

s: C

orpo

rate

So

cial

Res

pons

ibili

ty (C

SR) a

nd

cust

omer

requ

irem

ents

. •

Org

aniz

atio

nal c

apab

ilitie

s: E

nvi-

ronm

enta

l Man

agem

ent S

yste

ms

(EM

S).

• St

ringe

ncy

of e

nviro

nmen

tal r

egu-

latio

ns•

Size

, sec

tor.

• A

bate

men

t exp

endi

ture

, cos

t sav

-in

gs, e

quip

men

t upg

rade

.

• D

eman

d fa

ctor

s affe

ct th

e de

cisi

on

of th

e fir

m to

und

erta

ke e

co-in

nova

-tio

ns b

ut n

ot th

e le

vel o

f inv

est-

men

ts in

eco

-inno

vatio

ns.

• In

crea

sed

inve

stm

ents

in e

co-

inno

vatio

ns a

re st

imul

ated

by

othe

r fa

ctor

s suc

h as

cos

t sav

ings

, firm

s’ or

gani

zatio

nal c

apab

ilitie

s, an

d st

ricte

r reg

ulat

ions

.•

The

strin

genc

y of

env

ironm

enta

l re

gula

tions

affe

cts e

co-in

nova

tions

of

less

inno

vativ

e fir

ms d

iffer

ently

fr

om th

ose

of th

e m

ore

inno

vativ

e fir

ms.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

MA

ZZA

NTI

, M

. and

ZO

BO

-LI

, R. (

2006

)

Two

surv

eys o

f 19

9 m

anuf

actu

r-er

s firm

s in

Emili

a R

omag

na (n

orth

of

Ital

y), 2

002

and

2004

.

The

pape

r see

ks to

en-

hanc

e em

piric

al e

vide

nce

at fi

rm m

icro

econ

omic

le

vel o

f exo

geno

us a

nd

endo

geno

us fa

ctor

s to

spur

en

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

n.

• St

ruct

ural

var

iabl

es: s

ize,

shar

e of

re

venu

e in

inte

rnat

iona

l mar

kets

, sh

are

of fi

nal m

arke

t pro

duct

ion,

se

ctor

.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l R+D

.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l pol

icy

and

regu

la-

tion

cost

s.•

Eco-

audi

ting

sche

mes

.•

Net

wor

k ac

tiviti

es.

• O

ther

org

aniz

atio

nal a

nd te

chno

-lo

gica

l inn

ovat

ions

(no

envi

ron-

men

tal):

tota

l qua

lity

man

agem

ent,

tech

nolo

gica

l pro

cess

and

pro

d-uc

t inn

ovat

ion;

form

al tr

aini

ng

empl

oyee

cov

erag

e; o

rgan

izat

iona

l st

ruct

ure.

• Q

ualit

y / n

atur

e of

indu

stria

l rel

a-tio

nshi

ps.

• Th

e st

ruct

ural

cha

ract

eris

tics o

f fir

ms a

nd th

eir p

erfo

rman

ce a

re le

ss

impo

rtant

than

R&

D, i

nduc

ed c

osts

, ne

twor

ks, o

rgan

izat

iona

l rou

tines

an

d in

dust

rial r

elat

ions

hips

orie

nted

to

inno

vatio

n.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l pol

icy

and

volu

ntar

y au

dit p

rogr

ams r

evea

l im

porta

nt

dire

ct a

nd in

dire

ct e

ffect

s, al

thou

gh

evid

ence

is m

ixed

.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

RAV

E, T

., G

OET

ZKE,

F.

and

LAR

CH

, M

. (20

11)

Larg

e sc

ale

anon

ymou

s su

rvey

am

ong

1,57

2 fir

ms o

n th

e m

anuf

actu

r-in

g in

dust

ries

from

Am

adeu

s da

taba

se a

nd 6

12

from

the

regu

lar

inno

vatio

n su

rvey

of

the

Ifo

Inst

itute

fo

r Eco

nom

ic

Res

earc

h, 2

007

and

2009

The

pape

r pro

vide

s new

ev

iden

ce o

n th

e ob

ject

ives

an

d de

term

inan

ts o

f dif-

fere

nt ty

pes o

f inn

ovat

ions

an

d pa

tent

s, en

viro

nmen

-ta

l as o

ppos

ed to

oth

er

inno

vatio

ns a

nd p

aten

ts.

It al

so in

vest

igat

es h

ow

firm

-spe

cific

and

sect

or-

spec

ific

driv

ing

forc

es d

if-fe

r by

inno

vatio

n ty

pe, a

nd

outli

nes t

he fu

nctio

ns th

at

diffe

rent

inno

vatio

n ty

pes

have

for e

nviro

nmen

tal

and

inno

vatio

n po

licie

s.

• Si

ze, a

ge, E

MS.

• N

o ob

stac

le: c

ost,

dem

and,

info

r-m

atio

n, p

erso

nnel

, par

tner

, rig

idi-

ties,

capi

tal,

lega

l, su

bsid

ies.

• O

bjec

tive:

new

pro

duct

s, m

ore

prod

ucts

, mar

ket,

new

mar

ket,

tech

nolo

gy, c

ost.

• D

eter

min

ant:

tech

nolo

gy, m

arke

t, ne

w m

arke

ts, n

etw

orks

, firm

, en-

ergy

cos

ts, e

nviro

nmen

tal r

egul

a-tio

n, so

ciet

y, su

bsid

ies,

dem

and,

so

ciet

y.

• Ec

o-in

nova

tions

pay

rela

tivel

y m

ore

atte

ntio

n to

the

redu

ctio

n of

en

ergy

and

reso

urce

cos

ts c

ompa

red

to o

ther

inno

vato

rs.

• C

ost p

ress

ure

and

pred

icta

ble

and

stric

t fra

mew

ork

cond

ition

s of e

n-vi

ronm

enta

l pol

icy

are

an im

porta

nt

driv

er fo

r inc

rem

enta

l, fir

m-le

vel

eco-

inno

vatio

ns.

• Pa

tent

ed e

co-in

nova

tions

are

dr

iven

by

the

oppo

rtuni

ty to

cre

ate

new

mar

kets

and

by

gove

rnm

ent

subs

idie

s.

REH

FELD

, K

-M.,

REN

-N

ING

S, K

. and

ZI

EGLE

R, A

. (2

007)

Surv

ey o

n 55

8 G

erm

an fi

rms

from

six

man

u-fa

ctur

ers s

ecto

rs

2002

/200

3.

The

pape

r exa

min

es th

e re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n en

viro

nmen

tal o

rgan

iza-

tion

mea

sure

s tha

t are

co

nsid

ered

IPP-

mea

sure

s by

the

Euro

pean

Com

mis

-si

on a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal

prod

uct i

nnov

atio

ns.

• IP

P-m

easu

re v

aria

bles

: EM

S, w

aste

di

spos

al o

f ow

n pr

oduc

ts, l

ife c

ycle

as

sess

men

t, ec

o-la

bel

• C

ompl

ianc

e w

ith e

nviro

nmen

tal

polic

y•

R&

D a

ctiv

ities

• M

arke

t pul

l var

iabl

es: C

usto

mer

sa

tisfa

ctio

n, e

xpor

ts•

Firm

cha

ract

eris

tics:

ISO

900

1,

size

, age

• C

ertifi

catio

n of

env

ironm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

s has

a h

ighl

y po

sitiv

e ef

fect

in e

nviro

nmen

tal

prod

uct i

nnov

atio

ns.

• M

easu

res r

elat

ed to

was

te d

ispo

sal

and

take

bac

k sy

stem

s of o

wn

prod

-uc

ts a

re m

ore

impo

rtant

driv

ers f

or

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

duct

inno

vatio

n.

• O

ther

fact

ors s

uch

as e

nviro

nmen

tal

polic

y, te

chno

logy

pus

h an

d m

arke

t pu

ll fa

ctor

s, as

wel

l as o

ther

spe-

cific

cha

ract

eris

tics h

ave

a po

sitiv

e in

fluen

ce o

n en

viro

nmen

tal p

rodu

ct

inno

vatio

n.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

REN

NIN

GS,

K

., ZI

EGLE

R,

A.,

AN

KEL

E,

K. a

nd H

OFF

-M

AN

, E. (

2006

)

Tele

phon

e su

rvey

–

1,27

7 EM

AS

valid

ated

Ger

man

m

anuf

actu

ring

faci

litie

s, 20

02

The

pape

r exa

min

es th

e ef

fect

s of d

iffer

ent c

har-

acte

ristic

s of E

MA

S on

te

chni

cal e

nviro

nmen

tal

inno

vatio

ns.

• M

atur

ity o

f EM

S.•

Stra

tegi

c im

porta

nce

of E

MA

S.•

Lear

ning

pro

cess

es b

y EM

S.•

Org

aniz

atio

nal s

cope

of E

MA

S.•

Tech

nica

l env

ironm

enta

l inn

ova-

tions

and

env

ironm

enta

l org

aniz

a-tio

nal m

easu

res.

• En

viro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

n ta

rget

s.•

Impo

rtanc

e of

fact

ors f

or e

cono

mic

pe

rfor

man

ce.

• Fa

cilit

y-sp

ecifi

c va

riabl

es: a

ge,

size

, em

ploy

ee q

ualifi

catio

n,

shar

e of

turn

over

with

indu

stria

l cu

stom

ers,

shar

e of

exp

orts

, leg

al

inde

pend

ence

.•

Indu

stry

• D

omes

tic re

gion

(cou

ntry

)

• Th

e m

atur

ity o

f env

ironm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

s and

the

stro

ng

parti

cipa

tion

of sp

ecifi

c de

part-

men

ts in

the

furth

er d

evel

opm

ent o

f EM

SA su

ch a

s the

R&

D d

epar

t-m

ent a

re im

porta

nt d

eter

min

ants

of

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

cess

inno

vatio

ns.

• Le

arni

ng p

roce

sses

by

EMS

have

a

posi

tive

impa

ct o

n en

viro

nmen

tal

prod

uct i

nnov

atio

ns.

• Le

arni

ng p

roce

sses

and

env

iron-

men

tal p

roce

ss in

nova

tions

hav

e a

posi

tive

influ

ence

on

econ

omic

pe

rfor

man

ce.

WA

GN

ER, M

. (2

007)

342

Ger

man

m

anuf

actu

r-in

g fir

ms,

data

co

llect

ed d

urin

g a

surv

ey o

n th

e st

ate

of e

nviro

n-m

enta

l man

age-

men

t in

prac

tice

and

pate

nt d

ata

(41,

112

pate

nts)

, 19

99-2

004

The

pape

r ana

lyse

s the

re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n en

-vi

ronm

enta

l inn

ovat

ions

, en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

e-m

ent a

nd p

aten

ting.

• Fi

rm c

hara

cter

istic

s: se

ctor

, age

, si

ze, q

ualit

y m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l man

agem

ent s

yste

m

inde

x.•

R&

D in

tens

ity•

Deg

ree

of e

nviro

nmen

tal c

once

rn

of st

akeh

olde

rs.

• Th

e im

plem

enta

tion

leve

l of e

n-vi

ronm

enta

l man

agem

ent s

yste

ms

has a

pos

itive

effe

ct e

xclu

sive

ly o

n en

viro

nmen

tal p

roce

ss in

nova

tion.

• Th

e im

plem

enta

tion

leve

l of E

MS

is n

egat

ivel

y as

soci

ated

with

the

leve

l of a

firm

’s g

ener

al p

aten

ting

activ

ities

.•

Ther

e is

a p

ositi

ve re

latio

nshi

p be

twee

n en

viro

nmen

tal p

rodu

ct in

-no

vatio

n an

d pa

tent

ed e

nviro

nmen

-ta

l inn

ovat

ions

with

env

ironm

enta

l co

ncer

ned

stak

ehol

ders

, and

a

nega

tive

link

with

env

ironm

enta

lly

neut

ral s

take

hold

ers.



AU

THO

RD

ATA

SET

MA

IN F

OC

US

KEY

VA

RIA

BLE

S M

AIN

RES

ULT

S

WA

GN

ER, M

. (2

008)

Euro

pean

Bus

i-ne

ss E

nviro

n-m

ent B

arom

eter

(E

BEB

), 20

01

(Bel

gium

, Fra

nce,

G

erm

any,

Hun

-ga

ry, H

olla

nd,

Nor

way

, Sw

ede,

Sw

itzer

land

, U

nite

d K

ingd

om).

The

pape

r ana

lyse

s the

hy-

poth

esis

that

env

ironm

en-

tal m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

s an

d m

anag

eria

l act

iviti

es

to re

duce

neg

ativ

e en

vi-

ronm

enta

l im

pact

s whi

ch

are

not p

art o

f EM

S ha

ve

a po

sitiv

e in

fluen

ce o

n th

e pr

obab

ility

of fi

rms t

o ca

rry

out e

nviro

nmen

tal

inno

vatio

ns.

• Fi

rm c

hara

cter

istic

s: se

ctor

, age

, si

ze, q

ualit

y m

anag

emen

t sys

tem

.•

Envi

ronm

enta

l man

agem

ent s

yste

m

inde

x.•

Man

ager

ial a

ctiv

ities

: inf

orm

ing

cons

umer

s, m

arke

t res

earc

h on

gr

een

prod

ucts

, eco

-labe

lling

.

• En

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t sys

-te

ms a

re li

nked

to p

roce

ss in

nova

-tio

ns.

• Pr

ovid

ing

info

rmat

ion

to c

onsu

m-

ers a

nd e

co-la

belli

ng a

ctiv

ities

are

po

sitiv

ely

asso

ciat

ed to

pro

duct

in

nova

tion.

•

Mar

ket r

esea

rch

on th

e po

tent

ial

of e

nviro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

n is

po

sitiv

ely

rela

ted

to b

oth

proc

ess

and

prod

uct i

nnov

atio

n.•

Firm

’s si

ze d

oes n

ot se

em to

affe

ct

the

poss

ibili

ty to

dev

elop

pro

duct

or

proc

ess e

nviro

nmen

tal i

nnov

atio

ns.

Key Factors for Eco Innovation

Documents

Transcript of Key Factors for Eco Innovation